Case Title: Union v Nestle deadlock within twenty (20) days from submission of the case for

resolution.” Second Division of the NLRC promulgated a resolution

Summary:
Regardless therefore of their motives, or the validity of their
claims, the striking workers must cease and/or desist from any and all
acts that tend to, or undermine authority of the Secretary of Labor, once
an assumption and/or certification order is issued.
granting wage increase and other benefits to Nestle’s employees, ruling
on non-economic issues, as well as absolving the private respondent
of the Unfair Labor Practice charge. Petitioner finds said resolution to
be inadequate and accordingly, does not agree therewith. It filed a
motion for reconsideration, denied. Hence, this petition

Facts: Issue:

On June 22, 1988, the petitioner Union of the Filipro Employees, WON the strike was illegal.
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees
Held:
of Nestle Philippines, (private respondent) filed a Notice of Strike at the
DOLE raising the issues of CBA deadlock and unfair labor practice. YES. Regardless therefore of their motives, or the validity of
Private respondent assailed the legal personality of the proponents of their claims, the striking workers must cease and/or desist from any and
the said notice of strike to represent the Nestle employees, before the all acts that tend to, or undermine authority of the Secretary of Labor,
NCMB. This notwithstanding, the NCMB proceeded to invite the parties once an assumption and/or certification order is issued. They cannot,
to attend the conciliation meetings and to which private respondent for instance, ignore return-towork orders, citing unfair labor practices
failed to attend contending that it will deal only with a negotiating panel on the part of the company, to justify their actions. This authority of the
duly constituted and mandated in accordance with the UFE Constitution Secretary of Labor, once an assumption and/or certification order is
and By-laws. Thereafter, Company terminated from employment all issued. They cannot, for instance, ignore return-towork orders, citing
UFE Union officers, and all the members of the negotiating panel for unfair labor practices on the part of the company, to justify their actions
instigating and knowingly participating in a strike staged at the Makati,
Alabang, Cabuyao and Cagayan de Oro on September 11, 1987
without any notice of strike filed and a strike vote obtained for the
purpose.
The union filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. LA upheld the
validity of the dismissal; NLRC en banc affirmed. Subsequently,
company concluded separate CBAs with the general membership of
the union at Cebu/Davao and Cagayan de Oro units; Assailing the
validity of these agreements, the union filed a case of ULP against the
company with the NLRC-NCR Arbitration Branch Efforts to resolve the
dispute amicably were taken by the NCMB but yielded negative result.
Petitioner filed a motion asking the Secretary of Labor to assume
jurisdiction over the dispute of deadlock in collective bargaining
between the parties. On October 28, 1988, Labor Secretary Franklin
Drilon “certified” to the NLRC the said dispute between the UFE and
Nestle, Philippines.. which reads as follows: xxx “The NLRC is further
directed to call all the parties immediately and resolve the CBA